Laserfiche WebLink
February 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin <br />Standing —Nonprofit organization <br />challenges rezoning of <br />developers' parcels in city <br />Developer and city argue that nonprofit failed to <br />prove it would suffer special damages from rezoning <br />and therefore Tacks standing to bring the challenge <br />Citation: Cherry Community Organization v. City of Charlotte, 2017 <br />WL 5580339 (N. C. Ct. App. 2017) <br />NORTH CAROLINA (11/21/17)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a nonprofit organization showed that it would suffer special dam- <br />ages from a proposed rezoning such that it had standing (i.e., the legal <br />right) to seek declaratory judgment against the city and a developer chal- <br />lenging the rezoning. <br />The Background/Facts: Midtown Area Partners II, LLC ("MAP") <br />owned four parcels in and around the Cherry Community ("Cherry") in <br />the City of Charlotte (the "City"). Cherry was an historically African <br />American neighborhood located in the Midtown Morehead Cherry District <br />of the City. In August 2014, MAP submitted an application to the City to <br />rezone the four parcels from general -use districts to mixed development - <br />districts in furtherance of its plans to construct a mixed -use development. <br />The Cherry Community Organization ("CCO") was a nonprofit organi- <br />zation that sought to "protect the residential character, safety, and stability <br />of, as well as the affordable housing within [Cherry]." CCO opposed <br />MAP's rezoning application. CCO owned real property immediately <br />adjacent to and/or in close proximity to MAP's parcels. CCO complained <br />that it would suffer from "special damages" from the rezoning "in the <br />form of increased noise, traffic and parking, decreased visibility due to the <br />height of the proposed project, diminution in the peaceful residen[tial] <br />character of the Cherry neighborhood, and a reduction in the value of <br />[CCO's] real property." <br />The City Council ultimately approved MAP's rezoning applications. <br />CCO petitioned the superior court, seeking declaratory judgment against <br />the City and MAP. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, <br />and deciding the matter on the law alone, the trial court granted summary <br />judgment in favor of the City and MAP, and dismissed the case with <br />prejudice. <br />CCO appealed. As a threshold matter, the City and MAP asserted that <br />CCO lacked standing (i.e., the legal right) to bring the declaratory judg- <br />ment action. <br />DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed as modified. <br />10 ©2018 Thomson Reuters <br />